New pictures claim to show a redesigned stainless steel frame for the iPhone, with new placement of black bands on the perimeter of the handset's frame, the metal band which also acts as the phone's antenna [update: video removed].

The photos from SmartPhone Medic claim to be from a "very reliable source" and purport to show an "unreleased iPhone design." The alleged new frame is pictured next to the existing one used in the current iPhone 4.

The photos appear to have been doctored in order to, at the very least, remove shadows and colors from the white background. AppleInsider cannot make any claims about the authenticity of the photos in question, but they are reposted here for interest and discussion.

SmartPhone Medic gained attention last August, when it acquired a genuine front panel for the then-unannounced fourth-generation iPod touch, complete with a spot for a forward-facing camera. But unlike that scoop, the alleged iPhone frame published Wednesday is not a hands-on look, just pictures.

Both frames look largely the same in the pictures, but the alleged new part has a few key differences found in the placement of "antenna gaps." The current iPhone 4 has three gaps -- two on the side, one on top -- while the pictured part shows four -- two on each side, none on top.

Update: An identical looking part has also been spotted in a video on YouTube, embedded below:

Update 2: The video has been removed following a legal complaint from Apple.

The antenna gap on the bottom left side of the current iPhone 4 caused a major controversy last year, when it was revealed that bridging that gap with a hand or even a fingertip could result in degradation of wireless reception. There were numerous rumors that Apple would revise the design of the iPhone 4 to address the issue, but Apple instead held a press conference to explain the situation and offered customers a free "bumper" case to fix it.

The alleged iPhone part also shows the device's frame with a retained spot for a micro-SIM card, suggesting it could be a redesign of the current GSM handset, or could be a new "world" phone with both GSM and CDMA. Apple is rumored to release a CDMA compatible phone in the near future.

The pictures appear to have been doctored to, at the very least, remove shadows from the white background.

Another possibility, if the frame is legitimate, is for a CDMA phone that also has a micro-SIM slot for 4G long-term evolution connectivity. While CDMA does not use a SIM card, Verizon's high-speed 4G network does. Finally, it's possible the alleged part could be for a prototype "iPhone 5," thought Apple is not expected to release a full-fledged fifth-generation device until this summer.

New pictures claim to show a redesigned stainless steel frame for the iPhone, with new placement of black bands on the perimeter of the handset's frame, the metal band which also acts as the phone's antenna.

Just because it isn't mentioned ... the "bands" are irrelevant except for the fact that they separate the antennas. Talking about how many bands the new phone has is nonsensical when you should be talking about antennas. Essentially there are four metal sections now instead of three, so we could assume the presence of three or even possibly four antennas making it a "world phone," even though it isn't that likely. If there are no new antennas, then Apple has made the two that do exist significantly smaller. *That's* the news, not the bands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...The photos appear to have been doctored in order to, at the very least, remove shadows and colors from the white background. ...

No offence, but I see absolutely no evidence of this in the picture posted at all. They *may* have been doctored, but there isn't any indications of it being shown here.

J... Apple does subtle redesigns that include the re-placement of the bands, we get the "See!! We were right all along!!!" crowd. ...

Yeah, I can hardly wait for all the idiots to start raving about this part.

Perceptive types however, will note that the whole area where the "problem" supposedly was with iPhone 4 has been left exactly the same and that the antennas are still external to the device in exactly the same manner.

... Essentially there are four metal sections now instead of three ...

I could be misremembering this, but I believe there are only 2 "metal sections" (the cellular and wifi/bluetooth antennas) in the current IP4 design. Some of the "gaps" are merely cosmetic and the "sections" are actually joined internally. So, the number and position of "gaps" doesn't necessarily tell us a whole lot about the actual antenna design.

No offence, but I see absolutely no evidence of this in the picture posted at all. They *may* have been doctored, but there isn't any indications of it being shown here.

No, I think AI is right. I do a lot of table top photography just like this and it is absolutely impossible (IMO) to have the white background entirely knocked out while maintaining good detail and even contrast on the metal objects, therefore I agree that there has been some digital color correction involved here.

Plus if you zoom in with Photoshop, you can see the shadows are cut off unnaturally on the left two images. Furthermore, the images were taken separately and assembled together afterwards, and, the left set and the right were taken with different lighting and depth of field/focus.

So the 5th gen iPhone is going to look like the 4th gen, basically? I don't think.

Why not? The 2nd and 3rd phones had the same body

My question is th placement suggests that they are putting th antenna at the top where hands won't hit it. But as I recall, the reason for a bottom antenna is that US require the antenna to be at the bottom

These plus the video look pretty legit to me. I wouldnt have thought theyd get rid of the external antenna as some claimed. What I am shocked by is the lack of other vendors at CES going that route. I guess its not as necessary when you use a 4 plus display that allows you a much bigger footprint for the same components.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichL

The iPhone 3G and 3GS look identical. Why not the 4th and 5th generation models?

Id think that theyd go two generations with most iPhone models due to the accessories alone. I think that is a big selling point and having to wait to months for them to arrive isnt good business. The alternative is to release your future designs well in advance but that has its own issues.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I think this is pretty probable. It looks like the top part of the iPhone can be used as the WI-FI and Bluetooth antenna and the whole bottom part that almost goes around the whole phone is going to be network antenna. This way if the hand is covering only the bottom part of the phone now it will have the rest of the metal to connect through.

Plus it now looks symmetrical. Two black bands on one side and the other side.

I wouldn't be surprised if the iPhone 5 will keep the form factor of iPhone 4. Apple did it once with 3G, why not again.

Actually they are correct. It with be the fifth iPhone which would be the fifth generation. and thus could be called iPhone 5. They didn't call this phone the iPhone 4g because they didn't want to confuse the mass public since the phone is actually only on 3G. For they same reason they might not call the upcoming phone 4g(s) as it sounds like it won't yet be LTE

The next version of the iPhone will be the 5th generation, regardless of whether it's called iPhone 5, iPhone 4G or iPhone 4GS. (Unless the "next" version is considered the Verizon iPhone which might be essentially the same as the IP4 and more of a 4.5 gen than really 5th.)

I thought the placement of the junction band on the lower left-hand corner (looking straight at the phone) was the weak spot? If so, it's still there, unless that one got switched to an aesthetic band.

I could be misremembering this, but I believe there are only 2 "metal sections" (the cellular and wifi/bluetooth antennas) in the current IP4 design. Some of the "gaps" are merely cosmetic and the "sections" are actually joined internally. So, the number and position of "gaps" doesn't necessarily tell us a whole lot about the actual antenna design.

You are right. There are only two sections and three gaps. The only real gaps are the two separating the two section and the third one is for symmetry. I think All Apple need to do is make the third gap real making three sections instead of two. The bottom section could be used as a third antenna (maybe GPS?!) or just left alone as separator. But again, an idiot will come and bridge the top gap

My question is th placement suggests that they are putting th antenna at the top where hands won't hit it. But as I recall, the reason for a bottom antenna is that US require the antenna to be at the bottom

Antennas were moved to the bottom because testing of radiation levels is done with respect to the middle of a human head. An antenna located near the ear has a much higher reading than one located down near the mouth.

In the old days phones had antennas that stuck above the phone where they were farther from the middle of the head, but people wanted more compact phones so the antennas were chopped off and put inside the case or made retractable. Most people didn't bother pulling out their retractable antennas (or they broke them) putting the signal right beside the ear.

Of course burying the antenna down on the bottom of a phone is one of the worst possible places for reception, but phone companies don't care about reception they care about passing certification tests. Customers apparently don't care about reception either because they did nothing but complain when antennas stuck out the top.

I think this is pretty probable. It looks like the top part of the iPhone can be used as the WI-FI and Bluetooth antenna and the whole bottom part that almost goes around the whole phone is going to be network antenna. This way if the hand is covering only the bottom part of the phone now it will have the rest of the metal to connect through.

Plus it now looks symmetrical. Two black bands on one side and the other side.

I wouldn't be surprised if the iPhone 5 will keep the form factor of iPhone 4. Apple did it once with 3G, why not again.

I hope you are wrong to some degree, and Apple does make some minor changes. It seems clear that they are addressing the antenna issues which is great, but it seems to me they still need to change the glass back panel. Yes it is a gorgeous design, and I liked it immediately, but it is still too fragile. There have been lots of cracked screens for those not using a case. I think they need to change the back panel to some sort of metal and then use their patent for putting antennas behind the apple logo. I don't want to be forced to keep a gorgeous gadget in a marginally ugly case. It kindof defeats the purpose of all that cool industrial design.

The next version of the iPhone will be the 5th generation, regardless of whether it's called iPhone 5, iPhone 4G or iPhone 4GS. (Unless the "next" version is considered the Verizon iPhone which might be essentially the same as the IP4 and more of a 4.5 gen than really 5th.)

Will the 5G iPhone have a 4G radio that work in my G6?

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I thought the placement of the junction band on the lower left-hand corner (looking straight at the phone) was the weak spot? If so, it's still there, unless that one got switched to an aesthetic band.

What am I missing?

The problem did not came from the junction itself, but by the fact that covering it made a bridge between the two metallic bands therefore changing the resonance frequency of the antenna that could no longer receive the network field. Making more junctions would allow more antennas on each iPhone, so that even if you cover one, another keeps on working.

I dont see any evidence of LTE coming to slim smartphones until at least 2012. Therefore, I dont think theyd call it 4G unless they make a larger display iPhone, but I dont think that see a window until 2013.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I dont see any evidence of LTE coming to slim smartphones until at least 2012. Therefore, I dont think theyd call it 4G unless they make a larger display iPhone, but I dont think that see a window until 2013.

I've never liked the 'G terminology and never used it. I don't know why people keep on using it. Why not call the iPhone X-Gen by it's name? Why would apple call the new iPhone the 4GS or something? Users wouldn't understand.

I've never liked the 'G terminology and never used it. I don't know why people keep on using it. Why not call the iPhone X-Gen by it's name? Why would apple call the new iPhone the 4GS or something? Users wouldn't understand.

Im not a fan of using letter and number combinations that look more like an internal model number than a marketing name, but using a number and the letter G to represent generation Im okay with and its pretty standard.

Verizon is deftly using it to refer to their 4th generation network overhaul though some are upset because they falsely assume that 4G can only refer to the ITU definition despite Verizon making no such claim to it being ITU 4G and with the xG predating all cellphone service.

Typically Ill right it backwards in front of the iPhone to denote the generation of the device, but thats just me. e.g.: G1 iPhone or G6 iPod Nano.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Perhaps it's time Apple start making the antenna system diversity. This means that there will be TWO antennas serving the same purpose and the phone simply pick the antenna with the better reception to use at any given time. What is diversity? Go here: http://proaudiosuperstore.com/faq.ht...versity%20mean

In the example of a microphone system, the microphone is the transmitter and the antenna, box, and all that stuff, would be the receiver. In the cellular phone system, the phone towers are transmitters and our cell phones are receivers. So a diversity antenna system would be awesome!

I could be misremembering this, but I believe there are only 2 "metal sections" (the cellular and wifi/bluetooth antennas) in the current IP4 design. Some of the "gaps" are merely cosmetic and the "sections" are actually joined internally. So, the number and position of "gaps" doesn't necessarily tell us a whole lot about the actual antenna design.

You are right, they could be cosmetic.

They don't really look like it to me but it's certainly possible. Even more reason that discussion about the significance of the bands is really the wrong question.

I'm going to hang my hat on the idea that if they were *all* cosmetic, then the bands wouldn't be there at all, so therefore the antenna is still on the outside but reconfigured in some way. They all look like real gaps on the video too so I'm still going to stick to my original assumption that nothing about the area that previously caused the supposed problems has been changed.

I've never liked the 'G terminology and never used it. I don't know why people keep on using it. Why not call the iPhone X-Gen by it's name? Why would apple call the new iPhone the 4GS or something? Users wouldn't understand.

It seems like you are suggesting that Apple should match the numbers to the "generation" of the phone, which has never been the case so to start doing it now would make it even more confusing.

The numbers have always referred to the technology and *not* the generation up until "iPhone 4" which was the first to have it's number match it's generation, so it's more likely the next number will reference the technology (4G) than the generation next time also.

Sounds about right. I'd say, if one correctly predicted that the antenna will be redesigned, they should be allowed to say "I told you so!"...

Nah, you only have the right to say "I told you so" when you can prove that they changed the design of the antenna. These pictures and video don't really show that.

The so-called "problem" was bridging that gap between the two antennas, which by all appearances appears to be completely unchanged on this model. It might be different, but it looks the same to me even when you enlarge it.

The burden of proof is on the naysayers here and I see nothing yet that indicates they "addressed the issue" of the antenna design in that area. Show me proof that the troublesome band has been replaced with a cosmetic version and then you can say "I told you so."

Perhaps it's time Apple start making the antenna system diversity. This means that there will be TWO antennas serving the same purpose and the phone simply pick the antenna with the better reception to use at any given time. What is diversity? Go here: http://proaudiosuperstore.com/faq.ht...versity%20mean

In the example of a microphone system, the microphone is the transmitter and the antenna, box, and all that stuff, would be the receiver. In the cellular phone system, the phone towers are transmitters and our cell phones are receivers. So a diversity antenna system would be awesome!

You said they’d tweak the HW. Well, yeah, they tweak the HW every year. Since the antenna design is different with each new iPhone model does that mean that each new iPhone is proof that the previous model had a faulty antenna design? Of course not. It only means that Apple is progressing their designs.

The people sfocal is referring to are the ones that went Chicken Little over the externally placed antenna. Most of whom seem to think that Apple would be forced to go back to an internally placed antenna, that the *new* iPhone would be out in September after the free Bumper program ended, and/or that Apple would be forced to recall each and every iPhone 4 that was sold.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

To add to the confusion, who's to say what they got their hands on was a proto of the iphone 4. Apple goes through various design iteration and this just could be one of them.

Or if it is the VZ phone then that means no facetime for VZ customer. so what they an Apple decision of a VZ decision, either way the VZ customers could be getting less features than the run of the world